Cost of Diesel makes Tfsi almost as cheap to run

[mcreeder]

Working out the cost of diesel against the extra mpg of the VRS TDi over the Tfsi, its getting closer to the petrol being cheaper to run.

Prices round this was are about 116p for UL and 129p for Diesel. So at the stated combined mpg of 35.8 that is 14.7p a mile in unleaded, and at 49.6 for the TDi that is 11.8p a mile. If the gap between petrol and diesel continues to increase it could mean its cheaper to run, and some would say nicer to drive as well.

At those prices and doing around 20,000 miles a year it will only save me £580 a year in fuel and the car is £855 cheaper. Ok so the tax on the petrol car is more, but its still over a year before you start to save money on it.

My other question is, these are based on stated mpg figures, I am assuming if you dont drive like an old man and have a slightly heavier right foot, the gap in mpg would decrease? or does a petrol engine suffer even more on fuel for being driven harder?

[Damo]

Not quite a vRS TDi but I have just gone to a PD140 from a vRS TFSi, and I have found the difference in MPG incredible.

With the TFSi I had an average around 30mpg and around 320 miles to the tank.

With the PD140 I get around 47-54 mpg and just had my first 500 miles to the tank.

Instead of the usual fortnightly tank fill, its now monthly, so personally for me its been worth my while swapping

I do understand your point of view however, with the premiums you pay for diesels, but as I said its been great for me

[splinter]

I had a vrs tfsi which was remapped (Angel Tuning) to 240 bhp.

It returned 35+ per gallon and went like stink.This was not driving like a pussy and was both around town and motorway driving.

I had it 14 weeks and my wife couldnt handle "the animal"

I then changed it for an l&k 2.0tdi DSG and i am only averaging 38/39mpg.

Considering the extra money for diesel I think I made a mistake although the l&k is a more comfotable car and I have "lost" 100bhp!!!

[Nathanio]

alot of people on here and SCN report below 30mpg for the 2.0TFSI. I can't imagine it being 35MPG capable car personally in town driving and only on long cruises at 65-75mph.

The TFSI should be filled with 99Ron/V-Power or Ultimate to get the best out of it where the cost gap drops to 5pish.

Splinter - Do you rev the TDI like you did the vRS or drive it like a diesel should be?

[Dr Zoidberg]

Working out the cost of diesel against the extra mpg of the VRS TDi over the Tfsi, its getting closer to the petrol being cheaper to run.

Prices round this was are about 116p for UL and 129p for Diesel. So at the stated combined mpg of 35.8 that is 14.7p a mile in unleaded, and at 49.6 for the TDi that is 11.8p a mile. If the gap between petrol and diesel continues to increase it could mean its cheaper to run, and some would say nicer to drive as well.

At those prices and doing around 20,000 miles a year it will only save me £580 a year in fuel and the car is £855 cheaper. Ok so the tax on the petrol car is more, but its still over a year before you start to save money on it.

My other question is, these are based on stated mpg figures, I am assuming if you dont drive like an old man and have a slightly heavier right foot, the gap in mpg would decrease? or does a petrol engine suffer even more on fuel for being driven harder?

I've spend most of today driving a Golf GTI with the same engine as the VRS , and if you use a reasonable amount of the power (not flat out by any stretch) you'll get below the combined figure on a mixture of driving.

It certainly suffers a lot more from using the power than my PD140 octavia does.

The 2.0T is certainly capable of very respectable economy - I got 40mpg on a run back from Stockport (between 65 and 85 indicated on the motorway as traffic allowed) but that was driving it for economy to see what it would do. Had I driven my PD140 octavia in a similar fashion I'd have been above 55 , and if you are going to drive a car like that all the time then it's pointless buying a VRS

[mcreeder]

alot of people on here and SCN report below 30mpg for the 2.0TFSI. I can't imagine it being 35MPG capable car personally in town driving and only on long cruises at 65-75mph.

The TFSI should be filled with 99Ron/V-Power or Ultimate to get the best out of it where the cost gap drops to 5pish.

Splinter - Do you rev the TDI like you did the vRS or drive it like a diesel should be?

But then also would the VRS diesel not be better off with V-Power Diesel, and does the extra octane not help fuel econ a bit as well?

Also to point out i am looking at this from the point of new cars, so it would be a CR TDi not a PD in the VRS.

[Nathanio]

But then also would the VRS diesel not be better off with V-Power Diesel, and does the extra octane not help fuel econ a bit as well?

Also to point out i am looking at this from the point of new cars, so it would be a CR TDi not a PD in the VRS.

Diesels are different with the fuel ratings and work in Cetene rather than RON. Again though like petrol quality does vary but decent (i.e. Shell) diesel works just as well as the fancy stuff. The engines don't seem to benefit much from V-Power as the petrols do and most higher powered engines don't produce full power on boggo 95 ron.

You would have to drive the TFSI like a saint and the CR like you stole it to make the TFSI a better prospect over 20k miles a year.

By the time you add in the higher VED (£165 next year), higher insurance groups and 98/99ron fuel the TDIs work out better value.

[Dr Zoidberg]

And as always , you will get back a lot of the extra cost of a diesel when you sell the car on

[splinter]

Nathanio- No dont rev the nuts like I used to the VRS and using DSG you can't.

Bu--er the mpg I think I will just re-map the TDI and have some fun as well as comfort!!!!!!

[Nathanio]

Hybrid turbo for some large power....:orb_rocki

[Johnwg]

See my sig for the mpg I get from mine (quite high miles and reasonable runs often see me get into the high 30's mpg wise)..

Just remember one thing though it's wrong to compare the TFSI to a TDI based on the cost of UL to Derv...

Standard 95 Ron UL see's a drop in power and a drop in mpg, in order to get the most out of the engine you need to run it on 97/98/99 RON fuel, so base any calculation you do on the 120.9p per l that Super UL costs rather than the 112.9 of standerd UL

[mcreeder]

I am just thinking I would get more enjoyment out of the TFSi and really that the running costs are not as far off as they used to be with Petrol vs Diesel. I know its gonna be more expensive, but is it enough to worry about

[Johnwg]

I am just thinking I would get more enjoyment out of the TFSi and really that the running costs are not as far off as they used to be with Petrol vs Diesel. I know its gonna be more expensive, but is it enough to worry about

Yup. Pretty much sum's VRS TFSI ownership up for me

Accept that a TDI would be a cheaper option, but as you say these day's its not that much more of a cheaper option !!!

[mcreeder]

I dont get much more than 30 out of my 2.0 Focus at the mo, and that only has 130ps, so on official figures the VRS TFSi is more economical than that, so its all a bonus. Also If i get it re-mapped would that not help me drive it more economically which when you consider to and from work is on country A and B roads and you are just sat behind a queue of traffic at between 40 and 60mph, so basically cruising gently in 6th. Then at the weekend find some quieter roads and have some more fun

[mannyo]

For me its still diesel. My 2.0TDi gets between 550-600 miles out of a tank, and that means that instead of filling up every week, I now fill up every 2 instead. For the petrol to become worth it, the price difference between unleaded and diesel would have to be a lot bigger.

[Johnwg]

For me its still diesel. My 2.0TDi gets between 550-600 miles out of a tank, and that means that instead of filling up every week, I now fill up every 2 instead. For the petrol to become worth it, the price difference between unleaded and diesel would have to be a lot bigger.

Are the tank sizes the same on the 2.0 TDI and the TFSI ???

If so as a comparison I get between 380 - 450 (average is 420 miles) from a tank depending on driving conditions etc....

[nickcoll]

I then changed it for an l&k 2.0tdi DSG and i am only averaging 38/39mpg.

The DSGs definitely give much worse fuel economy. We have an Octavia Scout TDi that gives around 45mpg, but a relative's L&K with the same engine but with a DSG gearbox is only giving 35mpg - he's not surprisingly somewhat disappointed because he bought it so that he would use much less fuel, and drives accordingly - I almost said "Why did you get an auto if you wanted to save fuel" but since he's just spent rather a lot of wonga on it I decided not to rub his nose in it!

[ClarkE_123]

I dont get much more than 30 out of my 2.0 Focus at the mo, and that only has 130ps, so on official figures the VRS TFSi is more economical than that, so its all a bonus. Also If i get it re-mapped would that not help me drive it more economically which when you consider to and from work is on country A and B roads and you are just sat behind a queue of traffic at between 40 and 60mph, so basically cruising gently in 6th. Then at the weekend find some quieter roads and have some more fun

I had a MK1 Octy VRS (1.8T) which i got rid of in favour of a Fiesta ST (2.0) thinking I would save a load of money on petrol etc with the Fiesta being lighter.

But because you had to rev the balls off it to get it to go anywhere at a reasonable pace and motorway cruising was above 4000rpm it was terrible on petrol - not sure of figures as I didn't have a trip computer!!

I now have a MK2 Octy VRS (TFSI) and see better mpg than the Fiesta and have more fun in the process!!

Pull about 30mpg all averaged out in the TFSI which is probably a good 5mpg better than I used to see with similar use of the 1.8T.

Must agree that the cost of super unleaded should be used rather than the cost of standard when comparisons are made with the diesels, as this was probably used when the manufacturers mpg figures are calculated/measured.

[Micky 32]

In reality though 30mpg is what the TFSI does on average. I had a TDI with 220bhp and that used to do 41 ish mpg. In irish currency, and i do 600 miles a week, at the moment it's costing me 28 euro more a week than the TDI. That's nearly 1500 a year more !

[Micky 32]

Are the tank sizes the same on the 2.0 TDI and the TFSI ???

If so as a comparison I get between 380 - 450 (average is 420 miles) from a tank depending on driving conditions etc....

In fairness, with those figures i don't think you are using the car for what it's intended for, you mustn't use the performance much?

[Carjacked Mike]

I think your find a 7 speed DSG with dry clutches better on Fuel.

Mike

[Johnwg]

In fairness, with those figures i don't think you are using the car for what it's intended for, you mustn't use the performance much?

A large estate used to transport the family from the South West & the North West on a regular basis... "Practical and exciting" to quote a marketing phrase... like I said I often see high 30's, yet my average is 34.6 mpg, sort of say's at times my mpg is know where near that...........

Try and keep up with me across Salisbury Plain

[Aspman]

As said SU not 95.

I don't drive the car balls out very often. 35mpg isn't all that difficult to get and I have seen 38-40 on longer motorway runs.

If you do a lot of town driving then no way. Driven very carefully I might see 22mpg in town and more often 17.

I worked out running costs for the petrol or diesel before I bought against 15k miles per year. I'm doing about 8-10k in reality so the TFSI is cheaper for me.

The TFSI can look expensive but the 1.8 Mondeo (old style) hap paper figures of 36mpg or 31mpg for the 2l. Vectras are only a little better at 37mpg for 1.8/2.0.

Road tax is similar for all those cars. I guess insurance will be a bit higher as will tyres and some servicing.

I have to check myself from thinking the Octy is very expensive sometimes. I moved from a 1.5Dci Clio with 65mpg and £35 tax.

[PSM]

Really the cost difference between a petrol and diesel is fairly small and I would not advicate buying a car just becasue it is a little cheaper to run. It is more important that you enjoy driving it etc. and as long as you can afford to run it then get it. I did a quick calc the other day and worked out that as long after 26000 miles you had got back the extra cost of the diesel vrs over the petrol (ignored resale values etc) and that was using UL price so would pay back even quicker is using SUL.

However, I do have the diesel vrs but bought it because I like the way it drives etc. and actually prefered it over the petrol. The fact it saves me a little money as well is even better. I only do around 10k miles a year so not expecting it to pay me back quickly but am still enjoying every mile in it so far.

Test drive both and then see which you prefer (you may be surprised which on it is!!). Then buy the one you like best as neither are going to break the bank fuel wise.

[billybskoda]

I sold the benefits of my new stage 1 revo for my shiny mk2 tfsi rs to mrs B as the better mpg I now get.

I got better mpg from the mk1 when I did it and even on a short 8 mile drive, including a lot of 20,30,40 limits, and only a short bit of dual with a go or nothing roundabout at the end of it across the A27, I see a 4 mpg better figure compared to the car as standard.

Therefore, I get better power and torque delivery now and better mpg., without having to resort to diseasal.

TFSI all the way...